Invoking other executable prgms using C?

[Peter Moylan]

I asked for follow-ups to be set so the discussion gets directed only to
where it is topical. Or do you think that if someone starts a cross post
to a group you read that is off topic the cross-post should continue?
How about if a hundred people do it? How about if they do it with a
hundred threads each with 10 posts per day?

The difficulty is that the original poster has not yet indicated what
he wants. The question was cross-posted to two newsgroups, one
of which is OS-specific and the other not. Followups were not set,
so we don't know which group the OP is looking for an answer in.
There's no point in posting the answer in a group that the OP is
not reading.

Life would be easier if people posting questions were less vague, and
were aware of the rules of polite behaviour (setting followups, etc.).
Unfortunately not all posters are perfect, and we have to deal
with that.

You might not care about keeping groups you read topical, but we (most
of the regulars on comp.lang.c) care about keeping comp.lang.c topical.

A perfectly reasonable attitude. But we in the comp.os.os2.* groups are
perpetually plagued with Windows questions, presumably by people who
are not aware that computers weren't invented by Microsoft. In some
cases, as in the present thread, it's not at all clear whether a
system-specific solution was required.

What happens when someone posts a programming question to comp.lang.c,
and the context suggests (but does not make it unambiguously clear) that
it is probably a Visual Basic question? Do you give the C solution, or send
the poster to another group, or what? The answer is never obvious.

Also, top posting is not considered acceptable on comp.lang.c, if it is
acceptable on comp.os.os2.programmer.misc then that is another reason to
set follow-ups to only one group.

Top posting is not considered acceptable on any of the newsgroups that
I read, but it is pretty much compulsory on things like Google Groups.
Shit happens.

Note that I did not set follow ups because discussion of whether
something should be cross-posted is a discussion of topicality, and
those are generally considered topical everywhere.

Agreed. Besides, we still need to hear from the OP on the question of
which group the question should really have gone to.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists.
My e-mail addresses at newcastle.edu.au will probably remain "live"
for a while, but then they will disappear without warning.
The optusnet address still has about 5 months of life left.

 

[CBFalconer]

Flash Gordon wrote:
.... snip ...

What happens when someone posts a programming question to comp.lang.c,
and the context suggests (but does not make it unambiguously clear)
that it is probably a Visual Basic question? Do you give the C
solution, or send the poster to another group, or what? The answer
is never obvious.

We send them to another group, if known, and yell at idjits who
insist on answering their questions here, on the theory that the
answers will never get vetted, and just constitute unnecessary
clutter and encouragement.

Top posting is not considered acceptable on any of the newsgroups
that I read, but it is pretty much compulsory on things like
Google Groups. Shit happens.

No it isn't acceptable. But the first task with the googolian
monstrosities is to teach them to use what is already provided to
supply context. Some catch on immediately. Some seem to closely
resemble a pooh-bear of little brain.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[Keith Thompson]

Flash Gordon wrote: [...]

Also, top posting is not considered acceptable on comp.lang.c, if it
is acceptable on comp.os.os2.programmer.misc then that is another
reason to set follow-ups to only one group.

Top posting is not considered acceptable on any of the newsgroups that
I read, but it is pretty much compulsory on things like Google Groups.

A lot of people use the groups.google.com interface to post to
comp.lang.c; many of them manage to post properly. (If you're
referring to Google's own non-Usenet groups, I have no idea what the
protocol there is.)

 

[Flash Gordon]

The difficulty is that the original poster has not yet indicated what
he wants. The question was cross-posted to two newsgroups, one
of which is OS-specific and the other not. Followups were not set,
so we don't know which group the OP is looking for an answer in.
There's no point in posting the answer in a group that the OP is
not reading.

Life would be easier if people posting questions were less vague, and
were aware of the rules of polite behaviour (setting followups, etc.).
Unfortunately not all posters are perfect, and we have to deal
with that.

Setting follow-ups on a response does not prevent the message from being
seen in all groups, so the OP would still see it. So as long as the post
says that follow-ups have been redirected to the correct group this is
not a problem since the OP will see the response and know where further
messages in the thread will be seen. If the OP chooses not to go to the
correct group after a message redirecting him/her then that is his/her
problem, not ours.

What happens when someone posts a programming question to comp.lang.c,
and the context suggests (but does not make it unambiguously clear) that
it is probably a Visual Basic question? Do you give the C solution, or
send
the poster to another group, or what? The answer is never obvious.

Depending on luck they are either redirected so a specific group, told
to look for a group with "windows" in the name, or merely told they need
to post else where. Often, and especially when I am not certain I am
suggesting the correct group, I will tell them to check out the FAQ for
any alternative group before posting there.

Top posting is not considered acceptable on any of the newsgroups that
I read, but it is pretty much compulsory on things like Google Groups.
Shit happens.

Plenty of people manage to post correctly through the Google Groups
interface so that is not a valid excuse and certainly people don't get
let off for top-posting in any groups I read just because the use Google.

Agreed. Besides, we still need to hear from the OP on the question of
which group the question should really have gone to.

A reasonable assumption would have been either a standard C solution
(which may be topical over in comp.os.programmer.misc as well as
comp.lang.c, but could certainly be redirected to just comp.lang.c) or
OS2 specific solution which would only be topical over in an OS2 group.

BTW, we do accept questions about whether something is possible in
standard C or whether an implementation specific solution is required.
In such situations we answer the question and if the answer is that you
need a system specific solution we will do our best to suggest where to
ask about such a solution. So the OPs question *might* have been
acceptable here (I can't remember the details) even though discussion of
the specifics of the OS2 solution are not.

So I stand by my request that in a situation like this when posting an
OS2 specific response you set follow-ups to an OS2 group (with your
response being cross-posted) so we only see the original message and the
initial OS2 specific response, but not further discussion of the OS2
specifics.

 

[Default User]

Peter Moylan wrote:

Top posting is not considered acceptable on any of the newsgroups that
I read, but it is pretty much compulsory on things like Google Groups.

This is not true, where did you get such an idea? While the quoting
version of the Google reply is somewhat hidden (see .sig below) there's
nothing that requires or even encourages top-posting once you use the
right mechanism.

I had to use GG for the first four months of 2005. I managed to post
and reply quite satisfactorily.


Brian

 

[Keith Thompson]

This is not true, where did you get such an idea? While the quoting
version of the Google reply is somewhat hidden (see .sig below) there's
nothing that requires or even encourages top-posting once you use the
right mechanism.

I had to use GG for the first four months of 2005. I managed to post
and reply quite satisfactorily.

The Google interface, even when used properly, *mildly* encourages
top-posting. The text window it opens contains the quoted article
preceded by a blank line, and the cursor is at the top of the window.
If you jump to the text window by hitting tab repeatedly (I suppose
this might depend on which browser you're using) and then start
typing, your new text will appear at the top.

Of course, it's easy enough to delete the blank line at the top and
start typing at the bottom, but it's still a little too easy not to.

 

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

The Google interface, even when used properly, mildly encourages
top-posting. The text window it opens contains the quoted article
preceded by a blank line, and the cursor is at the top of the window.
If you jump to the text window by hitting tab repeatedly (I suppose
this might depend on which browser you're using) and then start
typing, your new text will appear at the top.

Not when I just tried it. Cursor was at the bottom.


Brian

 

[Vladimir S. Oka]

Keith Thompson wrote:



Not when I just tried it. Cursor was at the bottom.


Brian

Works for me as well. I'd prefer if they'd actually put the
cursor /below/ the last quoted line, instead of in its last character
position.

 

[Default User]

window.



Works for me as well. I'd prefer if they'd actually put the
cursor below the last quoted line, instead of in its last character
position.

I just tried it with IE, it behaves as Keith said. Once again Firefox
proves superior!



Brian

 

[Keith Thompson]

Not when I just tried it. Cursor was at the bottom.

So apart from its other flaws, the Google interface isn't even
consistent. Great.

 

[Default User]

window. >> If you jump to the text window by hitting tab repeatedly
(I suppose >> this might depend on which browser you're using) and
then start >> typing, your new text will appear at the top.

So apart from its other flaws, the Google interface isn't even
consistent. Great.

Looks like it might be browser dependent, not too surprising. I had
differing results with Firefox and IE.




Brian

 

[Mark McIntyre]

The Google interface, even when used properly, *mildly* encourages
top-posting. The text window it opens contains the quoted article
preceded by a blank line, and the cursor is at the top of the window.

So do quite a few newsreaders, Agent included. I am always amazed at
how many people are unable to find the arrow keys. Must be too much
right-arm on the mouse or something...
Mark McIntyre

 

[Richard Bos]

So do quite a few newsreaders, Agent included.

Of course it does. Cursor at the top, but _not_ on a blank line, so you
don't forget to snip. Sig (if you have one) at the bottom, so you don't
think that the top is all there is.

I am always amazed at how many people are unable to find the arrow keys.

I'm equally amazed at the number of people who have forgotten where the
delete key is.

Richard